Still though, I can’t pretend that this doesn’t worry me just a bit. If the President goes around Congress and acts alone, my guess is that he’ll sign an Executive Order to close the “gun show loophole”, requiring all private transfers to go through an FFL, regulate the sale of ammunition in some way, and enact some sort of reclassification of firearms through the ATF. What this would look like, and how much of this (if any) would be legal remains to be seen.

Executive Orders are supposed to be directions to the Executive Branch. Like, “Hey, we need milk for the White House fridge, go buy some”, or “The limo needs new tires – get it done”, or “Hire new office staff.”

The President is not king, and all law originates in the House of Rep.

This is a BIG deal, and it needs to be addressed immediately before real trouble starts.

Of the 2 possibilities, gun control via congressional action or executive order, executive order may actually be the preferred one for us, for a couple of reasons:
A) It’s likely to be an order unprecedented in scope. You just know they’ll aim high (ha!) on anything they can do unilaterally. That will definitely trigger a legal fight from guys like the SAF and the NRA, and it might even draw in other non-gun advocacy groups that have a beef with the unchecked expansion of Executive Branch powers. (The NRA and ACLU on the same side of an issue? It could happen) The legal fight could tie up implementation of the Order for years, if it survives the legal challenges at all.
B) If it does go into effect, an Executive Order is a whole lot easier to undo than new laws. We’ve seen that even staunchly pro-gun-rights lawmakers are more hesitant to actually reverse gun laws once they’re on the books than they are to fight them beforehand. But an EO can be reversed with the stroke of a pen by a Pro2A president in 2017.

Obviously “neither” is the preferred option, but if we win the fight in congress and the president does an end-around with an EO, all is not lost either.